The word “refund only” is now almost a taboo in the electric circles。
Buyers think it's a talisman, and as long as they're not satisfied, they can apply for a refund without returning the goods. The merchants thought it was a “calendar”, a hard-working delivery, and the buyers said they would return, and even the goods would not have to be sent back, and the freight charges would have to be reversed。
Recently, a “refund of the durian only” incident brought this contradiction to a climax。
The cause of the incident was simple: a 20-year-old college girl bought a durian on the internet. Upon receipt of the goods, she applied to the platform for a “refund only”, on the grounds that she was not well-versed”, i. E. That the money was to be returned, but the goods were not。
When the seller received the notice of refund, the entire person was lost。
A durian, delivered from the place of production, plus freight, packaging, wear and tear, cost dozens of dollars less. If you say back, you won't even send me the goods. How can i do this business
Businesses try to contact buyers to negotiate and expect them to return the goods, even if the freight costs are borne by them. But the buyer's attitude is very strong: the durian has been opened, can't go back, and the platform has already awarded “refund only”, why should i go back
Both sides stand still. In the end, the merchant sent out a post without a chance, saying, “you're 20 years old and you're a long way off. I'm done with this durian, but i want you to come forward and apologize publicly."
As soon as the post was posted, it immediately triggered a lively discussion online. There was support for merchants as to the abuse of the “refund-only” system and the platform's encouragement to buyers of wool; there was also support for buyers as to the fact that “refund-only” was the platform's rule and that the buyer was simply a reasonable use of the rule
So, whose fault is it
Let's close the camera and look at the three core issues behind this dispute。
First, what was the original purpose of “refunds only”
The “refund-only” system was originally introduced by the platform to safeguard consumer interests. It should be applied in situations where “repatriation costs are higher than the value of the commodity” or “the commodity itself is no longer necessary”. For example, you bought a bottle of a few bucks of drinks, and you found a leak, and you applied for a "refund alone" and a direct refund from the merchants, which both sides managed to save。
But the problem is that the system was subsequently targeted by a group of wool parties. They see “refunds only” as a tool for “white clients”: buy clothes to wear for a few days, buy books to read, or even buy durians to eat。
Second, is it not a good commodity for "refund alone"
The answer is: not quite。
The durian is a fresh fruit with a highly subjective taste. You think it's not well enough, and it's probably business that you don't know how to pick. You open it, you take a picture and say, "it's not good," and the platform doesn't know if you really think it's bad or if you just want to get laid。
Moreover, once fresh fruits are opened, they cannot be sold twice. You apply for a “refund alone” and the merchant loses both the goods and the freight, double blow. That is why, in such disputes, businesses tend to be particularly emotional — because he suffers real losses。
Third, is it true that a 20-year-old girl needs a “public apology”
In the merchant's shout, there's a special saying: "you're 20 years old and the road ahead is long."
Behind that phrase is a deeper concern: what happens when a person learns to take advantage of a “sweety wool” when she grows up
I'm not saying this girl must be a bad person. Maybe she really didn't think that she was good, maybe she just thought, "why don't i use the platform because it has the rule?" -- that's what many young people think。
The problem, however, is that rules are used to protect rights, not to drill in. When a system operates and begins to rely on “you don't hold me responsible”, it has been distorted。
The dispute ended with no winner。
The merchant lost a guacamole and caught a breath. Although the buyer saved dozens of dollars, she probably did not realize that her online record of disputes would affect her future consumption rights on other platforms. And the biggest loser of the whole thing was actually the platform — because the credibility of the system of “refunds only” was consumed。
Why should a business be so real? Think of it as a bite from a dog. But i think the real business is exactly the most scarce thing of the time. He's more than a few dozen dollars in real life, but the scales of hearts。
What would you do if you were a businessman? If you were that girl, would you apply for a refund? Do you think the system of “refunds only” should be
